Friday, January 31, 2014

A symposium would be
overseen by a “symposiarch,” or a “master of the feast.” Among the many
duties of this person would be making a decision as to the strength of the wine
for the evening, and this would depend on whether serious discussions were
going to be taking place, or whether sensual indulgences were all that were on
tap for the gathering. The wine would be drawn from a large jar that was
designed to be carried by two men, with the wine then served to the guests from
pitchers.

Continuing to learn
about this social institution, Paul’s words of the sixth chapter are kept in
mind as information is gathered about customary central features of the
symposium. Though free women of status were not allowed to attend such
events, female prostitutes were often hired to accentuate the festivities. This brings Paul’s mention of sexual
immorality and prostitutes (1 Corinthians 6:13,15) into play, as Paul’s critique of this
church is considered in the light of meal practice and the symposium.
Together with the prostitutes, slaves and boys would also be employed for
entertainment and used to provide service, thus drawing attention to Paul’s
mention of being “bought at a price” (6:20), which is the language of
slavery.

In effect then, the
symposium or convivium was a male-oriented drinking session that would
traditionally be held at the end of a meal. Greek pottery of ancient
times, including the time of Jesus and Paul, frequently includes decorations
depicting symposium, showing that the range of activities would include
drinking, music, singing, dancing, games, and sexual intercourse.

As one imagines what
might very well be the raucous nature of the symposium, and as one holds in
mind the vital nature and importance of meal gatherings as demonstrated by
Jesus and therefore embraced by the early church, can Paul not be understood to
be writing into the context of this type of event (rather than in as a general
approbation) when he delivers words such as “Do not be deceived! The
sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners,
practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive,
and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God” (6:9b-10)? This makes
a great deal of sense if Paul is addressing a church that is engaging in this
practice, while they presumptuously and falsely refer to it as their
celebration of the messianic feast, which is the very thing that was suppose to
signal the in-breaking of the kingdom of the Creator God.

So not only is one
forced to begin considering having “a careful regard for the body” in the mode
of the body of believers (rather than the personal body or the body of Christ
in terms of the bread of the communion table), but there is also a requirement
to deal with the idea that Paul’s delineation of the parameters of the Lord’s
Supper, or the communion table, are offered within the context of a grave
concern over what is being put on display, or conversely, what is not being put
on display by the meal practice of the Corinthian church.

Paul appears to be
quite concerned with the fact that love---true love as demonstrated by
compassion and mercy, which should be reflected by image-bearers that are
supposedly claiming Jesus as their Lord and living by the precepts on offer by
Him in both word and deed and which are part and parcel of the celebration of
the communion, is being left off the table. This is in the wake of
understanding the communion as a microcosm of the messianic feast by which it
is confessed that Jesus is Lord, and in which the in-breaking of the Creator
God’s compassion and mercy for this world is looked to and celebrated, with
this having taken place by and through the Christ-event.

The institution in
view, which fits within the meal practice of the ancient world and which seems
to demand consideration because of the context provided by Paul’s words in the sixth
chapter of first Corinthians, is what is known as the “symposium” (Greek) or
the “convivium” (Latin/Roman). In ancient Greece, the symposium was a
drinking party. The word “symposium” derives from the Greek word
“sympotein,” which means “to drink together.”

The symposium was a
key social institution in the Greco-Roman world, and would be especially so in
a well-known and popular Greek city such as Corinth. Among other things,
it served as a forum for men to debate philosophy or the issues of the day, to
devise grand schemes, to boast about achievements (note Paul’s mention of
boasting in the fifth chapter), or quite simply to engage in festivities with
friends, family, neighbors, and business associates.

Symposiums were also
frequently held to celebrate the introduction of young men into aristocratic
society, for the purpose of celebrating special occasions, athletic victories
(which would be key in Corinth which was the home of the Isthmian games), or
other contests such as those held for the creation and recitation of
poetry. Most assuredly, an aura of nobility (according to the honor and
shame culture and the societal honor competition) surrounded the
symposium.

The events would
typically be held in the men’s quarters of the household; and of course, early
church meetings took place in private homes, thus lending opportunities for such
engagements. Relatively quickly, it becomes rather simple to identify a
slippery slope, especially when the idea of the messianic feast, which was of
tremendous importance in the early church, was introduced into the wider Greco-Roman
culture.

Those that
participated would recline on couches that would be arrayed against three walls
of the room, away from the door or entryway. Obviously, space limitations
would limit the number of couches, therefore limiting the number of
participants, even if one were to take standing room into consideration.
The events were limited to men, and only those of a certain status were allowed
to recline. If any young men were present, they would not recline, but
would be obliged to sit up or to stand. Naturally, food and wine would be
served, and one does well to remember the social stratifications that would most
assuredly be at work in conjunction with this service. In addition,
entertainment would be provided. Depending
on the occasion, this entertainment could include games, songs, flute-girls or
boys, slaves performing various acts, or even entertainers hired specifically
for the occasions.

Moving forward then, it
is necessary to consider how much of Greek culture, carried forward by Rome,
had infiltrated the social life of first century Judea. The meals that
Jesus attended, and the meals to which He would make reference in His parables,
could very well have taken up the cultural dynamic of the wider world. Most assuredly, even if the communal meals
did not take the form of the Greco-Roman meal, the culture of the eastern
world, as it operated on and was dominated by considerations of honor and
shame, would have included social stratifications.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Continuing in this
stream of thought, Paul goes on to write “Or do you not know that anyone who is
united with a prostitute is one body with her? For it is said ‘The two
will become one flesh.’” (1 Corinthians 6:16) Paul then hammers home the
communal aspect of his use of “body,” thus enabling us to read “But the one
united with the Lord is one spirit with Him” (6:17). To this is then
added “Flee sexual immorality!” (6:18a) Having made this statement, Paul
goes on to quote what must have been a portion of what has been reported to him
about this church, writing “Every sin a person commits is outside of the body”
(6:18b).

This seems to have
unavoidable communal implications, as if Paul was being informed that practices
in which some were engaging, which it could be argued did not rightly bear out
the image of the Creator God as was intended for ambassadors of the kingdom of that
God that had been established upon the earth, should not have a negative effect
on the way that Paul views this church or the way that the church is viewed by
the community in which it is present---especially if the practices would not necessarily
have been considered scandalous to the observing community or if it might have
been proposed that such practices were a means of outreach and inclusion of all
and sundry in the mold of Jesus’ inclusion, at His tables, of those outside the
boundaries of the covenant people.

To this, Paul replies
“but the immoral person sins against his own body” (6:18c). The use of
“immoral” is clearly linked with the previously referenced sexual immorality
and the mention of prostitutes, while the use of “body,” taking into consideration
the union and uniting aspects that Paul has already mentioned, should be taken
as a reference to the church. Therefore, Paul’s critique asks to be
understood as a critique of practices that are allowed to take place within the
church (and not necessarily personal practices of individuals in their “private
lives”), with these practices causing the church as a body to fall short of its
responsibility to bear the image of the Creator God, which it can only do as it
imitates Jesus---seeing the Father in Him and in the deeds and practices of His
ministry.

Naturally, Paul is
not buying their argument, so the dissertation closes with Paul writing “Or do
you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you,
whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at
a price. Therefore glorify God with your body” (6:19-20). With
this, there are obvious and unmistakably individual and corporate applications
and implications. Clearly, if all of
this is considered within the responsibility of the church and its members to
be the representatives of a kingdom (a community), one is not to be separated
from the other.

Returning to the
thirteenth verse then, it is most interesting to note that talk of prostitutes
and sin and the body follows immediately after “Food is for the stomach and the
stomach is for food, but God will do away with both” (6:13a), which in turn
follows Paul’s rejoinders of “but not everything is beneficial” and “but I will
not be controlled by anything” (6:12b,d), which are his apparent responses to
the statement that has come to him (again, presumably from this church) that
“All things are lawful for me” (6:12a,c). The juxtaposition of an
elaboration on what is lawful, beneficial, controlling, and food, against a
statement about sexual immorality and the body, cannot help but cause one to
consider yet another common and accepted aspect of ancient meal practice upon
which this study has yet to elaborate. This situating of content
concerning sexual morality (or immorality) in the context of food
considerations and meal practice may be quite telling for an understanding of
the issues at hand in the church at Corinth.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

It is extremely valuable
to remember and to reiterate that Paul’s letters, though thoroughly dissected
and broken into smaller pieces, with theological, ecclesiastical,
soteriological, and Christological premises drawn from fragments that are
really not meant to be fragments at all, are intended to be viewed as a
whole. Things written and dealt with early in the letters will tend to
have a bearing on what comes later, and ideas and issues presented later in the
letters will generally spring from a foundation laid earlier in the
letter.

One must take all
necessary precautions to avoid isolating passages and interpreting passages in
isolation, without taking great pains to provide a contextual construct before
doing so, especially if doing so fails to take into account the necessary
historical considerations (social, political, cultural, economic, linguistic,
religious, etc…). So in proposing what appears to be a rather novel idea
(to the modern observer---not so much to the original audience) of considering
“the body” of verse twenty-nine of chapter eleven as a reference to the church
rather than to the bread, it is possible to recognize what Paul has done
earlier in the letter.

In the sixth chapter,
Paul offers a glimpse of what it is that he just might be getting at in the
eleventh chapter. There, in the midst of exhortations that are focused on
the way the community of the church should ideally function (6:1-8),
reflections on a primary focus of Jesus’ ministry by some always important
mentions of the kingdom of God (6:8,10), and then a short digression on food,
Paul writes about “the body.” With a stunning demonstration of linguistic
creativity and dexterity, Paul weaves an elaborate web of individualism and
community, doing so in the context of the proper behavior of believers functioning as part of
the church, as its members live and act within the world as representatives of
the kingdom of Creator God.

He writes: “The body
is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the
body. Now God indeed raise the Lord and He will raise us by His power”
(6:13b-14). Here, though there is a tendency to make a merely personal
application of the words concerning the body and sexual immorality, and though
there is, without a doubt, a personal ethical and moral dimension to the
statement, one should not dwell on the individual application to the exclusion
of the corporate vision, as Paul goes on to speak about the Lord raising
“us.” With that mindset created, it is not at all difficult (though one
may not yet understand how or why) to hear a reference to the body of believers
in that thirteenth verse. Continuing on
in that stream of thought, Paul writes “Do you not know that your bodies are
members of Christ?” (6:15) Here, some translations of the passage will
complete what appears to be implied in the statement, reading “members of
Christ’s body,” thus continuing to intertwine the personal with the communal,
as this intertwining hangs upon the ever-present thread of the presence of the kingdom
of Creator God.

Building on the
question that begins the fifteenth verse, Paul goes on to ask “Should I take
the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!”
(6:15b) In all honesty, this seems like a strange turn, unless, that is,
the larger movement of Paul’s letter is kept in mind, along with the fact that
this letter from Paul was designed to be read to the gathered community, who
may have been able to look around at each other and at themselves in such a way
as to cause the full and stinging weight of the Apostle’s words to come
crashing down upon them. Presumably,
this is what Paul may have expected.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Paul first writes
concerning the bread, reporting the words of Jesus that “This is My body, which
is for you” (11:24). He does this after first mentioning that Jesus had
taken bread, given thanks, and broke the bread (11:24). Then he goes on
to indicate that “every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim
the Lord’s death until He comes” (11:26). Continuing on to what would
eventually be designed as the twenty-seventh verse of the chapter (it’s worth
pointing out every once in a while that there were no chapter and verse
divisions in the original letter, which serves as a reminder that the letter
asks to be read as a letter, in a sing sitting), Paul again speaks of bread,
with the verse closing out with “the body and blood of the Lord”
(11:28b). This calls attention to and reaffirms the symbolic nature of
the bread, as it stands in for the body of Jesus. In the twenty-ninth
verse, Paul writes “the one who eats and drinks,” omitting but clearly implying
the bread and the cup, “without careful regard for the body eats and drinks
(the bread and the cup again implied though omitted) judgment against himself”
(11:29).

Changing gears a bit,
the insistence that follows, in which Paul reasons “that is why many of you are
weak and sick, and quite a few are dead” (11:30), along with “if we examined
ourselves, we would not be judged” (11:31), “but when we are judged by the
Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world”
(11:32), the address to “my brothers and sisters” (11:33a), and the final
addition of “when you come together to eat, wait for one another” (11:33b),
seems to indicate a change of focus. Paul is, it would appear, speaking
to the group again.

Taking that into
consideration, a re-reading of the twenty-ninth verse, in which Paul makes two
implicit references to the bread and the cup while also mentioning “the body,”
should arouse some curiosity. To which body is Paul referring? Is
he here using “body” in the same way that he used it in the twenty-fourth and
twenty-eighth verses? If so, why the multiple implied references to the
bread and the cup in verse twenty-nine, with a sudden shift to the body, if “body”
here is to be taken as yet another reference to the bread?

The Greek word that
is in usage has a minor variation, sharing the same root, so it is incumbent
upon the hearer to tease out the subtle shift that has taken place in this
verse. It is unlikely that the original
audience, immersed in the situation that is being addressed, would have missed
out on this shift. Paul’s use of “body” here has been shifted away from a
reference to the bread of the communion table, and has been re-directed and
used in reference to the body of believers---the church to which Paul
writes. This causes the usage to fit well with the words that began to be
directed to the group, as Paul confers his attention upon the congregational
body.

At first glance, this
seems like a strange conclusion, but when the larger context (the whole of the
letter) into which the treatment of the subject fits is reconsidered, and when one
listens to the letter in a single sitting, with those problems within the
church as a whole top of mind, then what seems like a strange conclusion
becomes not so strange at all. When considering the genius in what he is
doing, never forget that Paul is a thoroughly trained and gifted rhetorician. He is highly skilled in argumentation. He is quite capable of building a case for
his teachings through a sustained narrative in which pieces function as
essential building blocks. His letter to the Romans is probably the
finest example of these studiously acquired skills. Just as Israel
identified itself according to its own historical narrative, and just as Jesus
saw and fit Himself within that narrative of the Creator God’s redemptive plan
for the restoration of His good creation, Paul goes to great lengths to provide
the recipients of his letters with a narrative structure that will aid in their
coming to terms with that which he is attempting to communicate.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Though Paul does
write that “A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat
the bread and drink of the cup” (11:28), the thrust of the letter, when
considered within a diligently teased out knowledge about the context of meal
practice and what it communicated about the church and the presentation of the kingdom
of heaven that is the responsibility of the church, forces one to consider the
“person” in the context of the community in an attempt to fully and rightly
discern what it is that is taking place and what has the Apostle so exercised
at this congregation.

This is hardly a
nonsensical deduction, as Paul began this section of the letter with a general
address to the whole of the church that he would have intended to hear his
words together as a community at the same time and same place. He wrote
“I do not praise you” (11:17). This is
clearly directed to the group. When he writes “you come together not for
the better but for the worse” (11:17), and then reinforces this with “when you
come together as a church” (11:18), this is clearly group-speak and should be
heard as such. Hearing it in this way
serves as a reminder that it is the actions of the believing community,
composed of individual actors (but not necessarily the actions of individuals
in isolation) that are the concern of the Apostle.

The addition of “I
hear there are divisions among you” (11:18) reveals Paul’s desire for unity as
a group, while also serving as a lament that there are divisions. Such a
lament would militate against any type of practice that served to elevate the
individual aspect when concerning oneself with the meal which identified one as
a loyalist to Jesus and as a willing participant in the kingdom program of the
Creator God for the world that was being enacted through the actions of the
church. It would seem that, owing to the
attention that he is providing to this issue, the ongoing actions of the church
of the Christ will be reflected in the meal table and then, as an outgrowth of
their meal practice, enacted by the church community

This is not to say
that the Creator God does not work through individuals, but such a thought does
serve as a reminder that no man (or woman) is an island unto himself. So
there is no need to devalue the importance of individual pursuit within the
kingdom. However, maintaining consideration
of the context, which is that of a meal that is communal through and through,
individualistic concerns, especially as Paul addresses this church, fall by the
wayside. Realizing this makes it possible to get at the root of the
problem.

It has become clear
that an approach to that which serves to identify the church of the Christ, that
being the communion table, that puts a premium on the individual heart or soul
condition of the one that comes to the table, is almost counter-intuitive to what
Paul believes is necessary and appropriate (and has no place in a reading of
the first Corinthian letter). Indeed, if the example provided by Jesus is
considered again, as the meals of the Jesus tradition have come to devolve upon
the communion table, one could, if hung up on individualism and anachronistic
determinations of worthiness and examination, say that Jesus was Himself
prompting violations that would bring judgments of weakness, sickness, and
death, as He was consistently coming to the table and welcoming to the table (and
thus breaking bread with) those identified as tax collectors and sinners, who
were therefore most certainly examined and considered to be individuals of the
unworthy variety. This is quite the conundrum, and one is only forced to
it if one continues to miss the main concern of the Apostle as he addressed
what he had learned was happening in this church.

It should continue to
be borne in mind that the communion table was approached within a culture with
a ready understanding of the social significance of meals and meal practice, as
well as by a church that looked upon the Passover celebration (that had been
transformed by Jesus) through the lens and light of the messianic banquet and
all that such implied. In many ways, though there is a need to avoid
painting with too broad of a brush, one can discern that the communion
table---that simple ceremony that Jesus delivered “after supper”---had
effectively become symbolic of the messianic banquet, and therefore symbolic of
the establishment of the kingdom of heaven.

This symbolism carries
a significant amount of weight in the areas of theology and practice.
Theology because the communion table, in carrying the heavy weight of so much
meaning, tells its participants a great deal about the God that Jesus intended
to reveal and to be revealed through His church that was intended to reveal the
appearance that would be taken by the advent of the Creator God’s
kingdom. Practice because in looking back to the example of Jesus
(through His own meal practice), the participants at the communion table are
able to learn a very basic premise of what it would look like when they were
living and acting like those who truly believed that Jesus had been enthroned,
and that the Creator God had indeed begun to rule this world through Him.

Much like the
covenant markers of Judaism (primarily circumcision, dietary prescriptions, and
the keeping of the Sabbaths) had become the indicators of those that intended
to participate in the kingdom of the Creator God, so too did participation in
the communion, performed with an ear and an eye towards the inclusive, socially
flattening and barrier eliminating model that was said to have been presented
by Jesus and which was being shared through oral communication at the point
that this letter to the Corinthians was written (as evidenced by the fact that
Paul feels compelled to confirm the tradition that had been presented to him),
indicate one’s intention to participate in the kingdom of God on earth, doing
so through confirming the Lordship of Jesus by both word and deed.

This would include
living out the implications of the model that was to be found in what would
have been the well-known practices of table fellowship of the one that was
being looked to as King, and acknowledging the ministerial and missional
prominence of the readily communicated stories (as evidenced by the fact that
they take up a sizable amount of the Gospel accounts) that served to demonstrate
the way that Jesus approached and spoke about the meal table, along with His
handling of questions and concerns about the same.

This would also have
to be borne in mind alongside the oft-repeated fact that His positioning
Himself as Messiah, whether implicitly or explicitly, meant that the meal
tables of Jesus and therefore the table that the early church looked upon as
the one table of singular importance, had undeniable messianic banquet
sensibilities and would have to be considered within that terribly important
context. For these reasons (among other),
it would seem to be incumbent upon believers, observers, participants, and
expositors to move past a pre-occupation with individualistic concerns, and
about whether one is able to approach the communion table in a particular
condition of heart or soul that becomes determinative of the way that the
Creator God is going to view a sincere actor as they take the elements and
participate in the Lord’s Supper.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

If personal concerns are at the fore when one participates
in the communion table, then attempts taken to determine what it would mean to
take the elements in an unworthy manner, along with an examination of self,
juxtaposed with the irrelevant notion of examining oneself to see if one is in
the faith, then this would most likely devolve into an idea that sins must be
confessed before taking communion so that the participant will then be worthy
to receive the symbols of the body and blood.

Conversely, some would declare that this type of
self-examination is precisely not what is to take place, as it puts the focus
on one’s own self rather than on Jesus, and that Paul is indicating that the
focus must be on Jesus, with the bread and the cup acting as useful symbols
that allow such a focus to be maintained. Therefore, in a strange twist,
it is declared that confession of personal sins in order to become worthy is
that which makes one unworthy, as doing so is nothing more than part and parcel
of an attempt to work towards one’s salvation and is therefore a denial of
grace, which is ultimately taken to be a denial of Jesus.

Beyond that, semantics and
grammar are brought into play, and it is declared that proper understanding is
had when one sees that “unworthy” is not the word that is used, but rather
“unworthily,” which is then what makes all the difference in the world, with a
determination as to whether the word in question is meant to be taken as
modifying the noun or the verb. Now, this is not the place to delve into
whether or not the proper word is the adjective unworthy or the adverb unworthily,
and basing an entire communion methodology upon what is implied by the
differences between the two.

Getting focused on such a thing would seem to miss the point
either way, as determining if one is supposed to be focusing on self and sins
as opposed to Jesus and His sacrifice, may be an unwarranted flight into a
disconnected and individualized spiritualization in the realm of personal
concern and the final destination of one’s eternal soul. This would be
another instance of losing focus on the larger movement of the letter itself
and the kingdom community, of forgetting the environment into which Paul writes
and the concerns that he is raising and addressing within this entire section
that runs as one unit from at least the seventeenth verse through the
thirty-fourth verse, while also failing to consider the fact that there is a
very real and known situation that would be readily identified by Paul’s
intended hearers.

Quite frankly, though the thoughts and actions of individual
persons are in view here, it seems clear, at least based on the way that Paul
has introduced the specific topic of communion as well as what follows (verses
twenty-seven through thirty-four), that it is the actions of this church as a
group---as a body---when they are coming together for what they are erroneously
referring to as the Lord’s Supper (their actions making it an erroneous
application) that is the concern, and the demand is placed upon the reader to
see, hear, and understand the situation in this way.

Friday, January 24, 2014

Looking at Paul’s discourse
concerning the communion in this way---in the larger context of what precedes
it in the eleventh chapter and in consideration of the general tone of the
letter (Paul’s constant focus on the church body/body of believers) while also
holding on to the reality of a general and public reading to the group rather
than an individual and private reading, prompts an observer toward a better way
of coming to terms with what follows. The twenty-seventh verse reads “For
this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1
Corinthians 11:27).

When isolated from what prompted
Paul to write about that which he is said to have received from the Lord, this
verse prompts all types of interesting thoughts concerning what it means to
take in an unworthy manner. When one goes on to hear “A person should
examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the
cup” (11:28), an even larger range of potential interpretations come into
view.

In
fact and unfortunately, it is proof-texting that almost immediately comes into
view. Accordingly, and rather than considering the statement from its own
context, a separate statement from what is presented as Paul’s second letter to
the Corinthians, that of “Put yourselves to the test to see if you are in the
faith; examine yourselves!” (13:5a) is brought into service, so as to aid the
unsure reader of the first letter in their comprehension. That won’t do
at all, of course, as ideas communicated in the second letter would have little
to zero bearing on the way the hearers of the first letter are meant to understand
Paul’s directions. As a matter of logic, the recipients of letter one
would not have letter two in order to provide an interpretive matrix when they
first hear letter one. This would seem to be rather obvious, but is
sometimes lost to view in an effort to create a coherent systematic theological
system that would not be of any help to this particular church body.

Nevertheless, herein lies much
controversy, as rightly introspective Christians grapple with what it means to
take the bread or cup in an unworthy manner, or with what it means to examine
oneself in light of the fact that Paul continues on to write “For the one who
eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment
against himself. That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a
few are dead” (11:29-30).

Naturally,
judgment, weakness, sickness, and death are ends to be avoided.
Unfortunately, large numbers of Christians, down through the centuries, have
not only looked at the words of these verses and attempted to understand them
in isolation from the larger picture into which they are painted, they have
also looked at them from within the overarching idea that the goal of the
Christian life is simply to achieve heaven and avoid hell.

Therefore, words such as “guilty”
and “judgment” are associated with the proverbial and everlasting fires of
hell. In addition, individualistic concerns and notions of personal
salvation, and the corollaries of heaven and hell (as the ideals of salvation
and judgment) have further colored the interpretation in a way that simply
would not have been in the minds of Paul’s original hearers, especially if they
had already been well-instructed by him in the fundamentals of all that was
implied by the kingdom of heaven, and by concepts such as justification (the
means by which one enters into the kingdom of heaven).

Thursday, January 23, 2014

By countermanding the
example that had been provided by Jesus in the context of His announcement of the
presence of the kingdom of heaven in which He reversed and flattened out the
social order, this church community in the city of Corinth was apparently
guilty of not being a unique and shining light to the world. It seems
that they were indeed calling what they were doing the Lord’s Supper, and that
they were speaking of it in terms of the messianic banquet, but with what was
happening there, which is precisely the opposite of reversing and flattening
out the social order, but rather operating with it and reinforcing it, Paul
tells them “you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20b).

If one is going
hungry while another becomes drunk and presumably satiated with as much food as
desired (with serving taking place according to socially accepted honor-related
customs) while all were sitting at the same table, how could this possibly be
looked upon as the Lord’s Supper? Paul could rightly ask where compassion
and love and preference are on display in such a situation? Most
decidedly, those qualities are not present.
Paul does not deny that the members of this church community come from
different segments of society. He does not deny that there are
individuals from all socio-economic levels coming together, nor does he level any
part of his critique in this direction.
He accepts that this will be the case and does not rail against such
things. However, he does write “Do you
not have houses so that you can eat and drink?” (11:22a) The Apostle was
not concerning himself with the facts of the eating and the drinking.
This was not the thing with which he took issue.

Eating and drinking were
fine, as long as the meal table was shared equally with all and sundry. What appears to have concerned him was the
fact that the entrenched forces of the world, backed up from time immemorial by
the powers and rulers and kingdoms of the world and by the way that they went
about gaining and maintaining power, were infiltrating that which was supposed
to represent the kingdom of the Creator God---which was to model, based on
Jesus’ example and insistence, an entirely different way of establishing and
growing a kingdom---perhaps even an entirely different way of being human.

Following up on his
rhetorical inquiry about private houses in which the people could eat and drink
to their heart’s content, Paul asks “Or are you trying to show contempt for the
church of God by shaming those who have nothing?” (11:22b) How horrible
that this situation had crept into the church of the Christ! By bringing
the banqueting table and festal meal practices of the world into the church,
and by attempting to erect and maintain, within the church, the same social
divisions and boundaries that existed outside of the church, they were
extending the shame (in an honor and shame society) felt by those that they
supposedly referred to as brothers and sisters in their union with the Christ,
while blindly referring to their perverted (in the sense that it was completely
improper) meal table as the Lord’s Supper. It is no wonder that Paul
writes “Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this!” (11:22c),
before going on to talk about the Lord’s Supper as it is meant to be.

In the recounting of
what he is said to have received from Jesus and which he had passed on to this
church (11:23), Paul makes it clear that Jesus gave the bread and the cup to
all, and that none were left out. That was not the first time that Jesus
had done this, as the same thing can be seen to have happened at the feedings of the multitudes
over which Jesus presided---presumably, all shared equally. With this in
mind, can one even imagine engaging in a celebration, calling it the Lord’s
Supper, and not allowing all to participate? Of course not!

It seems that many do
engage in such a practice in their churches on a regular basis, as individuals
are actively and purposefully excluded from participation at the Lord’s Supper. This exclusion is often based on what might
very well appear to be, upon a closer and far more informed and contextualized
reading of the words of Paul regarding examination of self and judgment, a
seriously flawed practice. Some even
exclude themselves based on this type of reading. The exclusion of some
from participation in the meal due to social custom, however, appears to be
precisely what was taking place. Standard meal practice, in which
inequality was rampant, was in effect, and it was being referred to as the
Lord’s Supper. This could not possibly be that for which Jesus had gone
to the cross as part of the inauguration of the kingdom of His God on earth, so
it is little wonder that Paul was somewhat angry with this church.

One must not short
the understanding of what is being said by thinking of the Lord’s Supper as
simply the bread and the cup of the communion. The Lord’s Supper must here
be understood in the context of the well understood tradition of the entire
meal of Jesus and His disciples (and Jesus’ repeated meal practice), of what
that meal and the specific and identifiable tool for remembrance and
identification of kingdom participants that Jesus provided to His disciples at
that meal, and of the hopes of the messianic banquet. Thinking must be
adjusted so that when the Lord’s Supper is considered, that thinking goes
beyond just the bread and the cup of communion and of those few minutes of
church services that are taken up by the practice. Participants must
force themselves to think of the Lord’s Supper in its larger context and
against the background of the common meal practice of the ancient
world.

Moving then to the
twenty-first verse, where the facts of the matter seem to become more glaring,
Paul writes: “For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own
supper. One is hungry and another becomes drunk” (1 Corinthians 11:21). With
this, when considered along with what is now known about the banqueting tables
of the ancient world, in which the most honored get the best food and drink,
whereas those possessive of less honor get lesser food and drink, whereas some
in attendance may get nothing at all, with service taking place in order of
most honorable to least honorable. Thus
it becomes quite evident that Paul is taking issue with the meal practice of
the Corinthian church.

Reiterating then
because this is important, this serves as a reminder of the common and accepted
situation of banquets, in that the honored guests would eat first, and that
they would also eat the best food while receiving the best wine, while the
guests towards the other end of the social spectrum would have to wait to be
served, and perhaps may not be served at all.
In practice, some guests could be full and drunk before other guests
receive a single morsel of food.

Here then, it is
appropriate to reflect on the story of Jesus turning the water into wine at the
wedding feast of Cana, and in the context of what Paul writes to this church,
consider that the best wine was then going to be reserved for those that would
be receiving their food and drink at the very end of the meal. This would have been contrary to all custom,
and serves as a reminder that Jesus regularly flouts societal customs that He
believes to be out of step with the ideals of the presence of the kingdom of
heaven (heaven, the realm of the Creator God’s existence, coming to earth and
appearing where Jesus is and where those that believe in Him act according to
what they believe to be His ideals).

Returning to
consideration of Paul’s statement about one being hungry while another is
drunk, it is important to remember that in some cases when it came to the meals
of that time, invited guests would receive nothing at all. In that time, such a situation would not
necessarily have been thought to be a problem, especially if the honored guests
(those possessive of more honor in the court of public opinion) had received
their food and drink.

It would appear that
this altogether unfortunate situation was occurring within this church at their
common meals. Rather than demonstrating that they truly believed that all
were one because of their belief in Jesus as the Christ, and that there was
neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, and neither Jew nor Greek,
there were divisions being put on display at the very meal that was supposed to
be demonstrative of the messianic banquet, and to which they were apparently
making reference as being the “Lord’s Supper.”

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

It is of interest to
note that on one hand, this Corinthian church is remembering Paul and
maintaining the traditions that he had passed on to them, but on the other hand
and in many ways, they had become completely dismissive of that which Paul
passed on to them as coming from Jesus Himself.
Thus, no praise from Paul when it comes to their practice of the early
church tradition of the table of the Lord.

Continuing to move
forward, and considering what is happening within this church, it is paramount
to keep in mind that the culture possessed strong, dividing, separating,
stratifying societal forces that were in existence and readily demonstrated at
the meal tables of the ancient world. Because of the language that is in
use, when great pains are taken to understand and reflect upon the importance
of meals in that time, it becomes possible to identify the fact that Paul is
communicating in the context of problems centered on meal practice. It is
with this in mind that Paul can be heard saying “I do not praise you, because
you come together not for the better but for the worse. For in the first
place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you,
and in part I believe it” (1 Corinthians 11:17b-18).

Paul is not speaking
into a vacuum. This body of believers that meets regularly around the
meal table as a central feature of their gathering is going to know about their
own divisions, and they are going to know where those divisions are most
clearly able to be seen. This letter, which would have been read out loud
to the congregation in one sitting, has already made mention of “jealousy and
dissension” (3:3), and beyond the eleventh chapter---quite noticeably in
chapter twelve---Paul is going to address further divisions that have sprung up
in connection with the ongoing honor competition. Because those divisions
come on the heels of what he is communicating in the eleventh chapter that is
going to be clearly situated within church meal practice, and because the
congregation is going to hear these words in short order (with no private
reading and no artificial chapter and verse divisions), they actually play into
the divisions that Paul is referencing in the eleventh chapter.

Returning to the
nineteenth verse, Paul is found to have written: “For there must in fact be
divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident”
(11:19). This is a rhetorical exercise (part of the basic education
process of the Greco-Roman world), and the use of rhetoric is commonly employed
by Paul. He is not saying “there must be divisions so that we can know,
and know correctly, who among you is truly saved and approved by our God.”
Such a thought would move the analysis in the wrong direction. Rather, he is being critical of their
divisions and of the steps that are taken to highlight or to make quite evident
who it is that can be identified as those who are “approved.”

Because he goes on to
write “Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating
the Lord’s Supper” (11:20a), it can be noted that Paul is indeed addressing
divisions and those who are “approved” in the context of the church’s meal
table (their celebration of the Lord’s Supper/communion). This talk of
the “approved,” which is directed to a people steeped in the honor and shame
culture and the social stratification associated with it, seems to be a clear
reference to the honored guests and the chief seats of the world’s banqueting
tables. Realizing this opens up a whole
new world of understanding.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Obviously, Paul has
more than what is generally thought of as the communion in mind. Most believers,
for better or for worse, only experience the communion as a part of a church
service. Rarely, if ever, is the communion experienced as a component of
a community meal, which was the common experience of the early church.
This, of course, kept the meal practice traditions of Jesus at the forefront,
while also serving as a reminder that said meal practice was firmly ensconced
within the Isaianic messianic banquet and its associated expectations and
demands of the people of the Creator God. Naturally, this more accurate
duplication of the “Lord’s Supper,” as it took place within a world that had
very certain and defined parameters and social constructs around its meals,
while standing against those same constructs, would have created a dynamic that
is all too unfamiliar for most western world believers.

So yes, there is a
tendency to forget, or perhaps never even truly realize that Jesus and His
disciples did not simply go through a communion celebration in the way with
which so many believers today are familiar. It must be reiterated that the
Last Supper/Lord’s Supper was a meal. Paul provides this reminder, writing
“In the same way, He also took the cup after supper” (1 Corinthians 11:25a).
So right here in this text is a reminder that the basis for Christian communion
sprung from an event that took place at a meal.

Not only that, but it
becomes quite clear from Paul’s writing that what is thought of as the specific
practice of communion in the early church (sharing of the bread and the cup)
was also taking place at a meal.
However, because the communion itself (the bread and the cup) is so
often referred to as the “Lord’s Supper,” the meal aspect (and therefore the
messianic banquet aspect) is unfortunately screened from view. This represents
a massive loss of understanding. What is
lost is an extraordinary depth for conceptions concerning church practice and
the kingdom of heaven, and this deserves to be recovered.

If Paul provides
“instructions,” “warnings,” and “correctives” during the course of his
treatment of communion, common sense would communicate that he did so in the
context of dealing with a significant problem in the congregation to which he
was writing. This is a legitimate conclusion to reach, and it is
reinforced by what comes before Paul delves into his “passing along” of what he
had “received from the Lord” (11:23a). It is what precedes this that is
so incredibly instructive for understanding why it is that Paul takes this
route, for understanding the meal practice of the early church, for
understanding the role of the communion in particular within that meal
practice, and for understanding the kingdom implications and the way in which
the church of Jesus was charged to represent that kingdom through meal practice
and communion.

Something was taking
place in Corinth that, for Paul, was apparently odious in the extreme. Whatever it was that was taking place ran
contrary to all that was represented by the example that had been provided by
Jesus. If one considers the tone that Paul is clearly taking throughout
this letter, and then hear words such as “Now in giving the following
instruction I do not praise you” (11:17a), this should be heard as the sharp
rebuke that it is. When Paul writes, “I do not praise you,” he is
providing a contrast with an earlier statement in which he writes “I praise you
because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I
passed them on to you” (11:2). In viewing the letter as a whole, and not
isolating different sections from each other, this becomes quite the stark and
glaring contrast to Paul saying “I do not praise you,” and then going on to add
“Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this” (11:22b) before
launching into “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you”
(11:23a).

Monday, January 20, 2014

Now, it must be said
that what comes after the “instruction” portion of Paul’s rehearsal of the
Lord’s Supper is regularly incorporated into the practice of communion.
The “words of warning,” as they are generally viewed, are usually included so
as to induce introspection among potential participants at the table.
Paul writes “For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord. A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat
the bread and drink of the cup. For the one who eats and drinks without
careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself. That
is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead. But if we
examined ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the
Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world”
(1 Corinthians11:27-32).

These “words of
warning” have been appended to the “instructions” for good reason.
However, the way in which they are presented and in which they are urged to be
taken, removes them from their practical and objective context, as participants
are usually asked to apply this warning individually, as somehow related to
their personal salvation or personal spiritual status, with considerations of
personal and individual judgment falling if one does not have the right mindset
or status of holiness in one’s taking of the elements or the absolutely correct
understanding of what the bread and the cup represent.

Pretending that Paul
has such things in mind is unsatisfactory, and it ignores the corrective action
that Paul is taking, first and foremost with this church, as this body of
Jesus-followers fails to follow the example of Jesus and fails to understand
that Paul is criticizing this church for their failure to embody the kingdom of
heaven. In addition, the encouragement to come to these words
individually and personally, as if the recipients of this letter were silently
reading their Bible for themselves in their studies, rather than hearing the
letter read out loud to the entire congregation, has had a hand in creating an
unreasonable and Scripturally unsupportable expectation of some type of
Christian perfectionism and a need for confession of personal “sins” after a
personal examination of the condition of one’s heart before taking communion.

Continuing on from
the “words of warning” that Paul has delivered, corrective language from Paul
is encountered. He goes on to write “So then, my brothers and sisters,
when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry,
let him eat at home, so that when you assemble it does not lead to judgment”
(11:33-34a). If one is allowed to jump right in to the communion at the
twenty-third verse, not taking into consideration that which comes before in
the same chapter, nor the building message and movement of the entire letter,
then the addition of these words from Paul do not make a great deal of
sense.

Along with that, if
there is a failure to take common first century meal practice into
consideration when these words are read, then they are not going to make
sense. Finally, if one does not bear in mind the vision of the messianic
banquet and the personal example of Jesus participating in communion in a way
that goes beyond the “Last Supper” and takes in the whole of the tradition of
His meal practice that has the vision of the messianic banquet standing in its
background and informs the understanding of the early church as to why they are
even engaging in this practice in this way, then there will be a high degree of
difficulty encountered in the process of making sense of what Paul is getting
at it with these final corrective instructions.
Thus it is more than likely that the reader or the exegete is going to
approach and utilize the words of Paul incorrectly, missing out on the depth of
the serious problem that is being addressed.

As Jesus invited tax collectors and sinners and those that
would have been rightly identified by observers as being outside of the covenant
to join Him at His tables, and as He did so with thoughts of the long-hoped-for
messianic banquet clearly in the background, and as believers today (along with
the early church) view the communion table in that light, it would seem
ridiculous to raise such onerous limitations and boundaries that are productive
of fearfulness and ultimately exclusion, around that which allows us for the
mimicking of Jesus’ table practice and its associated and seeming inherent
power to show forth the kingdom of heaven.

When these words from the
Apostle Paul are read, and as the communion table is considered, the thoughts
that must be dancing at the forefront of the mind cannot be consumed by a
concern for a personal salvation. Rather, those deterministic thoughts
must be the kingdom of heaven and its manifestation and advancement. If
the communion table is going to be correctly approached, the focus cannot be on
the self, but on what the table and what happens there communicates about the
kingdom of heaven.

Based on what has been said to this point, it seems that
this approach may be the right one, and that it is in approaching the table in
this way that a better interpretation and understanding of Paul’s treatment of
the subject is to be found. Not only that, but bearing in mind the
kingdom of heaven, and doing so in the context of the meal practice of the
early church rather than one’s personal salvation, allows an observer to
understand why it is that Paul even brings up the subject in the first place.

Most unfortunately,
context is quite often neglected when it comes to Paul’s treatment of the communion
in his first letter to Corinth. So often, when the passage is referenced
or quoted, the reference picks up at the twenty-third verse of chapter eleven.
There, Paul writes “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you,
that the Lord Jesus on the night in which He was betrayed took bread, and after
He had given thanks He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for
you. Do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way, He also took
the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood.
Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For every time
you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He
comes” (11:23-26). These are the words that are regularly shared for the
purpose of creating the familiar setting in which one partakes of the elements
of the table.

When this happens,
the words of the Apostle are treated as if they were some type of instruction
manual on how to engage in the church’s meal practice. In a sense that is
true, but that is only a part of the story. In the regular time of
communion, is it the case that the opportunity is taken to look at what
precedes the “instructions”? Sadly, no. As is the case in so many
other exegetical situations, there is a tendency to simply pull things out of
context and use them for the purpose that is immediately at hand---reading into
the text that which one desires to see.

Making reference to
the “instruction” portion of chapter eleven without making reference to what
comes before or after, forces an analysis or exegesis into the unfortunate
situations of being ahistorical and subjective, thereby causing the hearers of
the exegesis to miss out on the aspects of the kingdom of heaven and on the
reference to Jesus’ meal practice that was so instructive and important for the
early community of believers.

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Now when you come together at the same place, you are not
really eating the Lord’s Supper. – 1 Corinthians 11:20 (NET)

When one grasps the importance
of meals and the meal table in the first century world and for the early church
that sprung up into that world, as they were an effective means by which to
communicate concepts concerning the kingdom of heaven, any mention of meals can
be vested with a significant amount of weight and meaning. This can be done even if there does not
appear to be any overt controversy or angst in the situation.

However, one such place in which
there does appear to be much controversy concerning the meal table is the
church at Corinth. This angst is expressed by the Apostle Paul in his
first letter to the Corinthians, which is the place where one is able to discover
the most detailed treatment of the communion table, outside of the Gospels, in
the whole of the New Testament. The words used in Paul’s presentation of
the communion in the eleventh chapter has been, for centuries, the basis for
the celebration of communion, shedding clear light on the practice of the early
church, as Paul helpfully elaborates on the goings-on that we see in the “Last
Supper” of Jesus and His disciples.

At the same time, while extraordinarily helpful, those same
words have been the source of much controversy, as words like “whoever eats the
bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself first,
and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup. For the one
who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks
judgment against himself. That is why many of you are weak and sick, and
quite a few are dead. But if we examined ourselves, we would not be
judged” (11:27-31), have been applied in a number of not always altogether helpful
or appropriate ways.

Quite often, there is an
encouragement to apply these words in an individual and personal manner, which
fits well within a notion of salvation that is predominantly individualistic
and focused on an other-worldly escapism. However, this type of
application presents us a bit of a problem, as it is unlikely that such notions
would have been the thrust of Paul’s understanding, nor that of the early
church. It is a near certainty that such
would not reflect the worldview in which Jesus Himself was ensconced, which was
also the world in which He would re-orient the Passover celebration and its
meaning towards Himself.

While there is certainly a sense of individual salvation to
be found, as the collective salvation of the covenant people would naturally
include the salvation of individuals, Jewish thoughts of salvation, especially
as connected with the Passover celebration, as would come to be the case for
the church’s communion table, were oriented towards the deliverance of the
people of the Creator God from exile and oppression, with the deliverance from
out of Egypt as the functional model. So while there is indeed an
individualistic component here, that individual benefit cannot be disconnected
from the community.

Also, the escapism that is
prevalent in so many popular interpretations of the communion passages of
chapter eleven would not have been a part of Paul’s worldview. The guilt
and judgment reference in the passage previously quoted would not at all be
connected with the eternal destination of one’s soul, and would certainly not have
been used as a means of limiting participation at the communion table or of
generating fear and trepidation at partaking of the elements.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

It must be remembered
that these were highly charged times in a number of ways. Much like
Jesus, who expected His listeners to have ears to hear, James did not offer
direct criticism. Such a thing would have been unwise, especially when
attempting to build a nascent, revolutionary movement that acts in ways that
are increasingly contrary to the prevailing cultural ethos. Presumably
then, the “rich” demands to be understood not in a general sense as those with
money, but primarily as the rulers of the people, and those who have gained
their wealth by oppression (and possibly corruption in connection with the
Temple). The same type of language can be observed with writers such as
Paul and John, as they cloaked their subversive words, whether those words were
subversive of the authorities of Israel or Rome, in what might be considered to
be obscure or relatively innocuous language.

However, what might
be obscure to the modern reader would likely be readily understandable to those
that comprised the community to whom the words were initially directed.
Indeed, to this end, Paul can be regularly heard taking up much of the language
of the Caesar cult in his letters---a language and relatively well-known
liturgy that would have been quite familiar to those that received his letters
(a prime example of this is the “from faith to faith” statement of Romans
1:17), but which would be heard quite differently by those that live at a
tremendous time and distance from the Apostle and his world.

These early believers
and Jesus-confessors, living in altogether different times with a message that
challenged the power structures of their entire world (both Jewish and
Greco-Roman), were required to speak and write in a way that forced the
recipients of their words, whether they be spoken or written, to make the
necessary connections and extrapolations that would convey right
understanding. It is incumbent upon all those who approach Scripture so
as to join in its story, if there is a sincere desire to rightly hear and
understand even the smallest portion of what is being communicated, to make the
attempt to become immersed in that same world.

This requires those that
are not denizens of the first century, to engage in a serious, sustained, and
strenuous mental effort to put aside cultural conditions and geographically and
chronologically defined worldviews that cannot be foisted upon the world of the
New Testament. This most definitely must be done, quite obviously, to
understand Jesus’ words, and indeed all of the words of Scripture, lest one
shortchange the words and intentions of the one called Lord and God, and so go
about one’s merry way of ignorant and prideful spirituality.

Friday, January 17, 2014

As should be expected
from those that are operating with a proper, first century Jewish mindset, it
is the earthly manifestation of the kingdom of the Creator God and its
demonstration through the meal (the prominent social event of the day in that
time---this has gone effectively unchanged) that is the foremost consideration,
rather than an ambiguous concept of “salvation” that relied on relatively
foreign, Greek concepts of an ethereal escape into a
good-creation-denying-and-therefore-supposedly-blissful disembodied condition,
with an eternal residence in some nether-regions beyond the clouds.

This concept, though
familiar to Jews of the first century, was largely rejected as antithetical to
their worldview and the way that they understood their God. It would also
come to be rejected by Gentiles that came into contact with the Gospel claim of
the Lordship of Jesus. Contrary to the
denial of the inherent goodness (though corrupted) of the creation, by
submitting to the Lordship of Jesus via the Spirit’s mysterious though effectual
application of the power of the Resurrection, those that called Jesus Lord came
to be concerned with the manifestation of the Creator God’s kingdom on earth, along
with what they understood to be the intended end of the renewal and restoration
of the creation and its gathering together of a people into a body that was
called to live out, in advance, that soon-to-be consummated kingdom as they
celebrated the re-creation that was to come. The Resurrection of Jesus
into this world (that had been changed and was constantly being changed by the
power of the Resurrection) with a new and transformed physical body, served as
the model for their expectation.

So moving forward
here in James, one does well to keep in mind the words of Jesus (from Luke 14---which
would likely have composed part of the oral traditions of Jesus being shared by
the church community at large) concerning exaltation and humiliation, about the
first being last and the last being first, about the filling of the empty seats
in the parable of the great banquet, and about the prevailing mindset (that
Jesus sought to change) in His day about the messianic banquet (that it was the
Creator God’s judgment on non-covenant people, represented by the deaf, blind,
and lame), in order to rightly hear the contextual critique that is being
offered.

Doing this allows for
the avoidance of anachronistic and improper application of terms when reading
statement such as “But you have dishonored the poor! Are not the rich
oppressing you and dragging you into the courts?” (2:6) James, presumably
with the messianic banquet as exampled by Jesus (as Messiah) in mind, and with
Jesus’ criticisms of the rich (Sanhedrin, High priest, Temple authorities,
scribes, etc…) that were in circulation amongst believers at that time, is
expressing incredulity that these same rich ones to whom they are offering the
chief seats in their assemblies are the same ones that are dragging them before
courts and councils, demanding that they disavow their claims that Jesus was indeed
the Messiah. This seems to be made clear when he writes “Do they not
blaspheme the good name of the one you belong to?” (2:7) With this, believers
are reminded of what Jesus said to His disciples, which was that “they will
seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and
prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of My
name” (Luke 21:12b).

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

There, immediately
after elevating orphans and widows (1:27), who were among the most overlooked
and ostracized groups in all of society, James goes on to write “My brothers
and sisters, do not show prejudice if you possess faith in our glorious Lord
Jesus Christ” (2:1). James is here addressing those that confess Jesus as
Lord, and therefore identify themselves as participants in His kingdom
movement.

Bearing in mind the
honor and shame culture and the social stratification that would be on display
in public gatherings (especially community meals), and keying in on the idea
that prejudice should not be shown, James writes “For if someone comes into
your assembly” (2:2a), which is an assembly that is most likely going to
include a common meal as was standard practice for those that sought to follow
the model that Jesus had adopted, “wearing a gold ring and fine clothing, and a
poor person enters in filthy clothes, do you pay attention to the one who is
finely dressed and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and to the poor person,
‘You stand over there,’ or ‘Sit on the floor’?” (2:2b-3)

Though the words are
not used, this mention of one person being seated in a good place, with another
person relegated to standing or sitting on the floor is a reference to
table/meal practice. Because Greek culture had infiltrated Jewish culture
to a point, it is here possible to hear the language of protoklisian (chief
seat) and eschaton (lowest place). Those in receipt of this letter, along
with those who would read it apart from the original audience, who would have
been imbued with the cultural understanding that made this language commonplace
and understandable, would have quickly and easily imagined the banqueting
constructs that are being referenced.

Common cultural
practice dictated that the most noble and esteemed would have been given the
best seats at a banquet, whereas the least would have been left standing or
taken their places on the floor. The honored guests (in the eyes of those
in attendance) would have received the best food and wine, and the less
honorable guests (in the eyes of the attendees and the court of public opinion)
within that honor and shame society, would have received items of much lower
quality if anything at all. What does James say about this situation that
is taking place in the church community to which his communication is
addressed? He says, “If so, have you not made distinctions among yourselves
and become judges with evil motives?” (2:4) Clearly, the harsh language
indicates that this type of behavior had no place within the church.

In a way that
continues to echo the example and the teachings of Jesus, when heard from
within a construct which has James envisioning the character of the meal
practice of the church, James goes on to say “Listen, my dear brothers and
sisters! Did God not choose the poor in the world to be rich in faith and
heirs of the kingdom that He promised to those who love Him?” (2:5) If a
banqueting table is in mind, this mention of the kingdom, along with the use of
“heirs” (which provides the Abrahamic covenant context that the author, due to
his mentioning of Abraham that is soon to follow) that accompanies the contrast
between rich and poor, places James squarely within the Jesus tradition that
served as a constant reminder of the messianic banquet and of the unexpected
way in which the Creator God was going about the business of establishing His
kingdom, as reflected in the unexpected way in which Jesus was said to have
gone about His daily ministry.

My brothers and
sisters, do not show prejudice if you possess faith in our glorious Lord Jesus
Christ. – James 2:1 (NET)

Social stratification
and the recognition of distinctions (delineation) was so incredibly ingrained
within the culture, be it Jewish or Greco-Roman culture (with concerns about
dining with only people of the covenant or with maintaining proper social
boundaries at the table), that it was inevitable that this societal force, if
left un-restrained and unchecked, would quickly make its way into the churches,
undoing and unmaking what it is that Jesus had exampled, demanded, and defended
via His portrayal in the Gospels.

The church, as a
community, was marked out as peculiar by its table practices, which can be seen
in the fact that many of the charges leveled against it, precipitating much
persecution, had to do with accusations of cannibalism. Such accusations,
naturally, represented a lack of understanding about the celebration of the eucharist/Lord’s
Supper/communion. Regardless, it demonstrates that there was something
distinctive about Christian meal practice that drew attention. This, of
course, was an excellent follow-on to Jesus’ meal practice, as it most
certainly attracted all kinds of attention.

Any type of activity
within the church of Jesus that drew distinctions between one person and
another, or which treated one person or type of person as a more worthy or
exalted or honored member of the kingdom, when viewed through the lens of the
Jesus tradition, would be problematic. Distinctions and associated
divisions could multiply quickly and become entrenched, and this would always
be a risk for the church, both then and now.

Social forces are
notoriously difficult to combat, but since Jesus went to a cross and urged His
disciples to take up a cross as well (and those words are to be heard within
the context of the shame and horror that the cross represented), it can be reasoned
that difficulties in the combat of the forces in operation within this world
are not to be looked upon as a deterrent for those that confess Jesus as
Lord. Difficulties are to be expected and encountered with love and
compassion, and a willingness to suffer the greatest of indignities, if need
be, in the encounter.

Though it does not
initially appear to be specifically related to a meal, one must keep in mind
the importance of Christian meal practice and its prominent place in the church
that was seeking to embody the kingdom ethics and principles put into operation
by Jesus (which were so readily seen at His table(s) that were given context by
the idea of the messianic banquet that would serve to identify the Creator God’s
redeeming activity on behalf of His people), while also remembering the
prevailing forces of societal stratification and division, as this problem of
the drawing of distinctions is encountered within the church community that is
being addressed in the book of James.

Friday, January 10, 2014

In the parable of the
prodigal, the younger son returns home, doing so with the knowledge that he is
taking a risk and potentially putting his life in jeopardy. If he is seen and recognized by the
community, he is possibly going to be subject to stoning at worst, and a very
public ceremony of shaming at best. However, Jesus says that “while he
was still a long way from home his father saw him, and his heart went out to
him: he ran and hugged his son and kissed him” (Luke 15:20b). Like Esau
running to Jacob, the compassionate father ran to his son, subjecting himself
to loss of honor (increase in shame). As is said of Esau, who did not
take it upon himself to inflict pain and suffering on Jacob, the compassionate father,
following the model of the compassionate brother, shamed and dishonored
himself, rather than allowing his son to suffer.

As Esau hugged and
kissed his brother, enduring the shame and extending compassion, so too did the
father and true star of the parable hug and kiss his son, in a similar
demonstration of merciful compassion. The son of the parable attempted to
execute the plan that he formulated and rehearsed, but before he was able to
deliver his prepared speech, the father cuts him off and restores him to the
position of honor as if he had never wronged his father, his family, or his
community. Likewise, Jacob’s planning and preparations were wholly
unnecessary, as Esau welcomed him with open arms, celebrating a joyous reunion with
no apparent thought of retribution or a need to re-pay (thought Jacob is
revealed to not be fully convinced of his brother’s compassion).

The father in the
parable exclaims that “this son of mine was dead, and is alive again---he was
lost and is found!” (15:24a). Esau, who had wished his brother dead, and
to whom he was effectively dead, celebrates the return of his brother---alive
again. Here are the stories of a compassionate brother and a
compassionate father, who dealt with a brother and a son whose stories shared
some common features. Both had been dishonored and both had been
shamed. Both had the right to take vengeance. Both exercised
compassion.

Both stories, as told
to and for a people of the covenant-making and providential Creator God that
seeks to reconcile His image-bearers and His world to Himself, reveal a God
that revels in compassion---willing to take the pain and shame and suffering
that rightfully belong to others upon Himself (there was no greater shame than
the curse of the cross) so as to set His world to rights, restore the beings
created and set forth as His image in the world, and show forth His kingdom and
His glory.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Jacob did not
squander his wealth, though as has been seen, life was a bit wild for him.
Like the prodigal in his exile from his father’s house, fortune had eluded
Jacob though others had gotten rich at his expense. The son of the famed parable
is said to have experienced the effects of destitution, as a terrible famine
grips the land. Seeking whatever income he could find, he attaches
himself to a citizen of that country, much like Jacob was attached to Laban
because of the need to pay him for all of the wives (and children until the
wife debt obligation is met), and is sent to feed the citizen’s pigs.

Naturally, as the
hearers of Jesus’ parable were predominantly Jewish, and because they would
naturally assume that the family in the story is Jewish, they would see this as
an attempt by the man to get rid of an unwanted hanger-on, expecting that the
young Jewish man would resolutely refuse to lower and defile himself in such a
way. This was viewed as a possibility in Laban’s business deal with
Jacob, which, based on Laban’s actions after striking the deal, might be taken
to have indicated a desire to rid himself of Jacob.

Eventually, while
feeding the pigs but while still hungry, the young man in the parable is said
to have come “to his senses,” saying “How many of my father’s hired workers
have food enough and to spare, but here I am dying from hunger!” (Luke 15:17), and
so hatches a plan to return to the home that he had left in shame and dishonor.
Similarly, Jacob comes to his senses. With
the documented hostility that he is experiencing, he wonders why it is that he
remains where he is, when he could return to his father’s house, rather than
continuing to serve under a man who clearly did not want him around any longer.

The younger son however,
knows that he has shamed himself and his family, and knows that harsh
consequence up to and including the possibility of death, await him if he
returns to his father’s house. Owing to that, and considering the fact
that his father’s hired workers earn enough to feed themselves with money to
spare, he devises a plan that will allow him to gain one of those positions, so
as to be able to pay back his father over time, and in the process allow him to
regain the honor that he had lost. So he says “I will get up and go to my
father and say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against
you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of
your hired workers.’” (15:18-19)

This is the same
thing that can be seen with Jacob. He cannot simply return to the house
that he left, covered in shame, having dishonored his father and his brother.
He has a brother that has previously declared his desire to kill him, and a
father that he greatly dishonored. Therefore he must devise a plan. Clearly, because his father (though it was
done unwittingly) passed the covenantal blessing on to him, his primary concern
is with the wrath of his brother, thus the planning taking place with the
division of the families, and then the gifts of animals, with the message
passed along by the servants.

Effectively, with the
language that is heard on the lips of Jacob, bowing to the ground as he refers
to himself as Esau’s servant while also referring to Esau as “my lord” and
telling him that seeing his face is like seeing the face of God, it is almost
as if Jacob can be heard saying something like “I have sinned against heaven
and against you; treat me like one of your hired workers.”

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

With the gifts of a
substantial number of animals, the words of the messengers, the bowing before
Esau, and the repeated use of “servant” and “lord,” that plan could be seen unfolding.
However, it was also seen that Esau felt these things to have been completely
unnecessary, as he runs to his brother, welcoming him with open arms and demonstrating
compassion in his words and actions. Basically, though Esau will
begrudgingly accept the gifts that are on offer from his brother, Jacob’s
well-rehearsed plan is dismissed out of hand, as Esau counters Jacob’s attempt
to attract shame to himself in order to elevate his aggrieved brother.

In stark contrast and
as something of a reversal, Esau’s own actions bring shame upon himself, as he
runs to his brother and refrains from taking action to avenge the dishonor done
to him many years prior. Whereas Jacob expected conflict, Esau appeared
to be in favor of celebration. Though Jacob had been dead to him, and
though part of the plot was the thought that Esau had wanted him dead, it was
now as if Jacob had returned to life.

Though it has taken
some work to get to this point, this story of the compassionate brother sounds
remarkably similar to a story that would eventually be offered up by
Jesus. Though Esau generally gets a bad rap, and though there is precious
little positive talk of Esau in Scriptures, perhaps the man who regularly dined
with tax collectors and sinners, who offered up stories commending “unjust”
stewards and good Samaritans, and generally opened up the kingdom of God to what
were considered to be all the wrong people, had the story of Esau as the
compassionate brother in mind when He offered up the parable of the
compassionate father (often incorrectly labeled as the parable of the prodigal
son).

In that story, Jesus
tells about a man with two sons. The younger of the two demanded that his
father give him the assets that would eventually come to him upon his father’s
death. This is the equivalent of wishing his father dead, which would
have been well understood by those that would hear this tale from the lips of
Jesus. The father, who would be immensely dishonored by this action (the
family would also suffer dishonor in the community), accedes to his son’s
wishes.

Though this is not
precisely what happened with Isaac and his two sons, Isaac insisted on blessing
Esau (the older son), indicating that he wanted to do so before he died.
However, rather than Esau receiving the blessing as the firstborn, the blessing
fell to Jacob. In the parable, as it is presented by Jesus, the son dishonored
his father by his request, just as Jacob dishonored his father. In both
cases, the father has every right to take vengeance on his son, but he
restrains himself. There is compassion in evidence.

In the parable, reports
of the actions of the son would have quickly spread through the community,
creating a growing hostility towards this presumptuous and shameful son. It is not unreasonable to suggest that his
life would have possibly been in jeopardy (as was Jacob’s), so it is quite
likely that he quickly sells the assets in order to gain liquidity and
leaves. As did Jacob, with possible death looming, the son leaves on a
journey to a distant country. Jesus informs His hearers that the son
“squandered his wealth with a wild lifestyle” (Luke 15:13b).

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

One could go on at
great length in discussing the honor and shame connotations so as to be able to
gain a more robust reading of Scripture, but it seems as if the point has been
made. Considerations of honor and shame are more than necessary if there
is a desire to rightly understand the stories and movement of Scripture, as
this cultural component looms large. Approaching the text from this angle
allows a reader to make sense of the stories on their own terms, rather than reading
terms and ideas into them (however noble or uplifting those things might be) that
simply are not there.

Additionally, as was
previously said, proceeding along these lines allows for the narrative to be
heard as it would have been heard by the people for whom it was written, while
also allowing for a better comprehension of the movement of Scripture, and
therefore an enhanced ability to comprehend and serve the God that is said to
be revealed in and through those Scriptures. This then, of course, allows
a divine image-bearer to better understand the words and deeds of the God that
was made manifest in human form, that being Jesus of Nazareth.

So what has been seen
in the course of this study? What is it that prompted travel down the
path that has revealed that Esau, perhaps surprisingly, was the compassionate
brother? To answer that question, the story of Jacob must be reviewed in
broad terms. Jacob, as is known, was one of two sons. He was the
younger of fraternal twins. In a deceptive and dishonorable action, he
secured for himself the blessing of his (purportedly dying---a deception in its
own right) father---a blessing that rightfully belonged to his brother.
This generated anger on behalf of his brother, and most likely on the part of
his father as well (due to the shame that would have been generated by the
deception). It is said that his brother was determined to kill him, so
rather than staying, Jacob left, putting distance between himself and those
that he had dishonored, ending up in the house of his uncle Laban.

As was seen, Jacob
lived a rather interesting and tumultuous life. In particular, the report
of his wives competing for his attention and his affection, with them offering
up their female servants as wives to their husband, is revealed as being rather
riotous. When one considers the lifestyle, the adjective “wild” comes to
mind. By all indications he worked very hard for his uncle. It
appears to be the case that his labor served to increase his uncle’s wealth
(and honor), but when it came to his own wealth, possessions, and honor, though
he had surreptitiously secured the blessing of his father (which promised the
richness of the earth along with plenty of grain and new wine), it was as if
his life was gripped by famine. Seeking to rectify this situation, he
struck a deal with his uncle. Though at first it seems like a legitimate
agreement, closer inspection reveals that Laban may very well have intended to
cause Jacob to become discouraged and despondent over his situation, possibly hopeful
that this would result in Jacob leaving (and leaving behind his wives and
children that would have been the property of his uncle).

Eventually, after
realizing that there was nothing more to be gained by staying where he was, and
continuing to live in what was going to be a difficult and ultimately
unsatisfying situation, Jacob expresses a desire to return to his father’s house.
He shares with his wives the reasons for acting on this desire. However,
there is the problem of his dishonored and angry brother, not to mention the
dishonored and angry father, whose son had brought shame on the entire family.
Jacob had no idea how Esau would respond, and he figured that it was likely
that he would meet up with Esau somewhere along the journey to his father’s
house. With this in mind, he devises a plan by which he will attempt to
soothe his brother, even if it means dishonor for himself.

Monday, January 6, 2014

As an aside, a
similar story of give and take and relent can be found in connection with
Abraham, which serves as a reminder that there is a cultural component at play
in this reunion exchange between Jacob and Esau, and that it is informed by the
constant struggle for honor in almost every transaction. The twenty-third
chapter of Genesis opens with the report of the death of Abraham’s wife
(Jacob’s grandmother) Sarah has died. Abraham desired to obtain a burial
site for Sarah, and speaks to a group of men, saying “I am a temporary settler
among you. Grant me ownership of a burial site among you so that I may
bury my dead” (23:4).

Not wanting to lose
sight of Esau’s compassion, of his willingness to shame himself, and the fact
that great honor accrues to him because of his extension of compassion, the
encounter between Jacob and Esau is kept in mind, along with the culture of
honor that even extends to routine transactions, as the exchange between
Abraham and these men is observed. Abraham receives a favorable answer as
he hears: “Listen, sir, you are a mighty prince among us! You may bury
your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his
tomb to prevent you from burying your dead” (23:6). Though this seems
like the offer of a gift, in reality, with these words the negotiations have
begun. Abraham understands this.

Abraham “got up and
bowed down to the local people,” saying “If you agree that I may bury my dead,
then hear me out. As Ephron the son of Zohar if he will sell me the cave
of Machpelah that belongs to him… Let him sell it to me publicly for the full
price, so that I may own it as a burial site” (23:8-9). Though this will certainly
be a great honor for Ephron, the immediate acceptance of payment from Abraham
would be a source of dishonor for Ephron. Also, as every such transaction
is an opportunity to elevate oneself in ongoing competition to accrue honor and
eschew shame, getting Abraham to purchase more than that for which he has
expressed interest will gain him some honor, as it demonstrates the shrewdness
and business savvy of the seller. Of course, this will not be unexpected
by Abraham. He’s willing to play the
game, and has undoubtedly played the game throughout his life as well.

The negotiation
continues, as Ephron, couching the offer as a demonstration of magnanimity
while also extending the range of purchase (a rather regular feature in
transactions in the culture) says, “No, my lord! Hear me out. I
sell you both the field and the cave that is in it. In the presence of my
people I sell it to you. Bury your dead” (23:11). Ephron has called
attention to the fact that there are many witnesses to this negotiation, which
is a tacit reminder of the honor game that is being played. Hearing this,
Abraham bows again and says “Hear me, if you will. I pay to you the price
of the field. Take it from me so that I may bury my dead there”
(23:13b).

It should be noticed that Abraham does not yet
name a price, leaving this to Ephron to propose---another feature of the game
of honor. Abraham receives the response of “Hear me, my lord. The
land is worth four hundred pieces of silver, but what is that between me and
you? So bury your dead” (23:15). Though Ephron has been forced to
name the price (and thus loses that end of the game), by his words he attempts
to position the price as so low that it is practically a gift to Abraham. Thus the game continues. Those that
have spent any amount of time in the east, whether living there or simply
visiting, will be familiar with this type of exchange.